DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 7/21/2025 has been entered.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “exactly one of Ra and Rb”. Applicants are advised to amend this claim to recite “exactly one of Ra or Rb”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “at least one selected from Ga, G2, Ja, J2, Q, Qb, and Qc is N”. Applicants are advised to amend this phrase to recite “at least one selected from Ga, G2, Ja, J2, Q, Qb, or Qc is N”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 recites the phrase “formula I;”, see Page 6. Applicants are advised to amend this claim to recite “Formula I;”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites Formula 2a as:
PNG
media_image1.png
92
128
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, the claim recites the variable R1 in Formula 2a in the body of the claims as R1. In order to avoid any potential confusion, Applicants are advised to amend Formula 2a to recite “R1, i.e. consistent with the notation present in remaining formulas of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 6 recites the phrase “at least one Q*=N;”. Applicants are advised to amend this claim to recite “at least one Q* is N;”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, 12, and 16-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogiwara et al (US 2020/0035922).
Regarding claim 1, Ogiwara et al discloses the following compound (Page 104):
PNG
media_image2.png
360
417
media_image2.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by recited Formula I:
PNG
media_image3.png
240
350
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where:
RI, one (1) RII, RIII, and RIV are hydrogen;
RVI, RVII and RVIII are hydrogen; and
RV is hydrogen;
The second substituent RII is:
PNG
media_image4.png
339
504
media_image4.png
Greyscale
.
This substituent corresponds to Formula I-0 of the claims:
PNG
media_image5.png
274
512
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
m is zero (0);
n is zero (0);
o is zero (0);
Ga is N;
Ja is CRa, where Ra is a C6 aryl;
Qb is CR1, where R1 is a C6 aryl;
Qc is N;
Z is Q, where Q is N;
Qa is CRa, where Ra is a binding site.
In the compound disclosed by the reference, substituent RII corresponds to Formula I-0, while the claims require that substituent RV corresponds to Formula I-0. Accordingly, the compound disclosed by the reference and that claimed are isomers - compounds having the same radicals in physically different positions on the same nucleus, and the courts have held, as found in In re Wilder, 563 F.2d 457, 195 USPQ 426 (CCPA 1977), that compounds which are isomers “are generally of sufficiently close structural similarity that there is a presumed expectation that such compounds possess similar properties”.
In light of the case law cited above, it therefore would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the compound disclosed in the present claims is but an obvious variant of the compound disclosed in the reference and thereby one of ordinary skill in the art would have arrived at the claimed invention.
Alternatively, it is noted that the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment, and attention is directed to Formula (21A) (Page 39):
PNG
media_image6.png
282
294
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where R21 can be a substituted heteroaryl and R22 can be hydrogen ([0243] and [0235]-[0236]). Furthermore, the reference discloses that the compound can be symmetric about the x-y, i.e. ([0210]):
PNG
media_image7.png
246
176
media_image7.png
Greyscale
.
Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses an embodiment where substituent RV in recited Formula I is a phenyl substituted triazine and substituent RII is hydrogen.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Ogiwara et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, RI, RII, RIII, and RIV are hydrogen.
Regarding claim 4, Ogiwara et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound corresponding to Formula Ia:
PNG
media_image8.png
238
346
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 5, Ogiwara et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, RII is equal to RIII.
Regarding claim 6, Ogiwara et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, RV corresponds to Formula 2a:
PNG
media_image9.png
100
124
media_image9.png
Greyscale
where Q is N; and R1 is a C6 aryl.
Regarding claim 7, Ogiwara et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound corresponding to Formula 3:
PNG
media_image10.png
306
336
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where Q is N; and R1 is a C6 aryl.
Regarding claim 8, Ogiwara et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound corresponding to Formula 3:
PNG
media_image11.png
246
352
media_image11.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 9, Ogiwara et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference does not disclose a compound corresponding to Formula Ig:
PNG
media_image12.png
284
356
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
However, attention is directed to Formula (21A) (Page 39):
PNG
media_image6.png
282
294
media_image6.png
Greyscale
,
where R22 and R23 can be a C6 aryl group ([0236]). Accordingly, the disclosure of the reference encompasses recited Formula Ig.
Regarding claim 12, Ogiwara et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses an organic light emitting device, where the emitter layer comprises first and second compounds (Abstract). The second compound corresponds to the compound discussed above and is an emitter, while the first compound is a host (Abstract, [0050], and [0196]). Accordingly, the reference discloses a composition comprising the recited organic molecule as an emitter, and a host compound different from the organic molecule.
Regarding claim 16, Ogiwara et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses an organic electroluminescent device, i.e. an optoelectronic device, comprising the disclosed compound, (disclosed as a second compound) (Abstract).
Regarding claim 17, Ogiwara et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses an organic electroluminescent device, i.e. an organic light emitting diode.
Regarding claim 18, Ogiwara et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses the following organic electroluminescent device (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image13.png
326
368
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
This device comprises a substrate (2); an anode (3); and a cathode (4), where the anode (3) is disposed on the substrate (2). The device further comprises an emitting layer (4), i.e. a light emitting layer, which is disposed between the anode (3) and the cathode (4), and which comprises the disclosed compound (Abstract).
Regarding claim 19, Ogiwara et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the compound (disclosed as a second compound) is an emitter ([0050]), i.e. a luminescent emitter.
Regarding claim 20, Ogiwara et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses an organic electroluminescent device, i.e. an organic light emitting diode comprising the compound (disclosed as a second compound) (Abstract).
Regarding claim 21, Ogiwara et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses the following organic electroluminescent device (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image13.png
326
368
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
This device comprises a substrate (2); an anode (3); and a cathode (4), where the anode (3) is disposed on the substrate (2). The device further comprises an emitting layer (4), i.e. a light emitting layer, which is disposed between the anode (3) and the cathode (4), and which comprises the disclosed compound (Abstract).
Regarding claim 22, Ogiwara et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the light emitting layer of the organic light electroluminescent device comprises the composition.
Regarding claim 23, Ogiwara et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the device is an organic electroluminescent device, i.e. an organic light emitting diode.
Regarding claim 24, Ogiwara et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses the following organic electroluminescent device (Figure 1):
PNG
media_image13.png
326
368
media_image13.png
Greyscale
.
This device comprises a substrate (2); an anode (3); and a cathode (4), where the anode (3) is disposed on the substrate (2). The device further comprises an emitting layer (4), i.e. a light emitting layer, which is disposed between the anode (3) and the cathode (4), and which comprises the disclosed composition (Abstract).
Regarding claim 25, Ogiwara et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses vacuum deposition the compound as a method of producing an organic electroluminescent device ([0302]).
Claims 1, 3-9, 12, and 16-24 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2021/0053998).
Regarding claim 1, Kim et al discloses the following compound (Page 28 – 1-137):
PNG
media_image14.png
424
411
media_image14.png
Greyscale
.
This compound corresponds to the compound represented by recited Formula I:
PNG
media_image3.png
240
350
media_image3.png
Greyscale
,
where:
RI and RIV are hydrogen;
RII and RII are C6 aryls;
RVI, RVII and RVIII are H.
Substituent RV is a methyl group and therefore, does not correspond to Formula I-0 of the claims:
PNG
media_image5.png
274
512
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to the following general formula for the compound ([0014] – Formula 1):
PNG
media_image15.png
264
356
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 can be heteroaryl having 5 to 60 nuclear atoms. Paragraph [0031] defines heteroaryl as including triazinyl, i.e.
PNG
media_image16.png
261
342
media_image16.png
Greyscale
.
The triazinyl substituent corresponds to Formula I-0 of the claims:
PNG
media_image5.png
274
512
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
m is zero (0);
n is zero (0);
o is zero (0);
Ga is N;
Ja is CRa, where Ra is hydrogen;
Qb is CR1, where R1 is hydrogen;
Qc is N;
Z is Q, where Q is N; and
Qa is CRa, where Ra is a binding site.
While the reference fails to exemplify the presently claimed compound nor can the claimed compound be "clearly envisaged" from the reference as required to meet the standard of anticipation, nevertheless, in light of the overlap between the claimed compound and the compound disclosed by the reference, absent a showing of criticality for the presently claimed compound, it is urged that it would have been within the skill level of one of ordinary skill in the art, to use the compound which is both disclosed by the reference and encompassed within the scope of the present claims and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 3, Kim et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, RI and RIV are hydrogen; and RII and RIII are Ph, i.e. phenyl.
Regarding claim 4, Kim et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound corresponding to Formula Ia:
PNG
media_image8.png
238
346
media_image8.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 5, Kim et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, RII is equal to RIII.
Regarding claim 6, Kim et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, RV corresponds to Formula 2a:
PNG
media_image9.png
100
124
media_image9.png
Greyscale
where Q is N and R1 is hydrogen.
Regarding claim 7, Kim et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound corresponding to Formula 3:
PNG
media_image10.png
306
336
media_image10.png
Greyscale
,
where Q is N; and R1 is a hydrogen.
Regarding claim 8, Kim et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound corresponding to Formula 3:
PNG
media_image11.png
246
352
media_image11.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 9, Kim et al teaches all the claim limitations as set forth above. From the discussion above, the reference discloses a compound corresponding to Formula Ig:
PNG
media_image12.png
284
356
media_image12.png
Greyscale
.
Regarding claim 12, Kim et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses an organic light emitting device, i.e. an organic electroluminescent element, where the light emitting layer comprises the compound discussed above as a dopant and the light emitting layer further comprises a compound represented by Formula 2 as a host compound (Abstract and [0025]). The light emitting layer comprising the two (2) compounds corresponds to the composition recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 16, Kim et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses an organic electroluminescent element, i.e. an optoelectronic device, comprising the disclosed compound (Abstract and [0025]).
Regarding claim 17, Kim et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses an organic electroluminescent element, i.e. an organic light emitting diode (Abstract and [0025]).
Regarding claim 18, Kim et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the organic electroluminescent element, i.e. the optoelectronic device, comprises a substrate, an anode, i.e. ITO, a cathode i.e. a combination of Mg and Ag, where the anode and cathode are disposed on the substrate ([0286]-[0288] – Example 1). The light emitting layer comprises the disclosed compound ([0287]).
Regarding claim 19, Kim et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the compound is a luminescent emitter ([0025] and [0006]).
Regarding claim 20, Kim et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses an organic light emitting device, i.e. an organic electroluminescent element, where the light emitting layer comprises the compound discussed above as a dopant, and the light emitting layer further comprises a compound represented by Formula 2 as a host compound (Abstract and [0025]). Accordingly, the reference discloses the optoelectronic device as recited in the present claims.
Regarding claim 21, Kim et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the organic electroluminescent element, i.e. the optoelectronic device, comprises a substrate, an anode, i.e. ITO, a cathode i.e. a combination of Mg and Ag, where the anode and cathode are disposed on the substrate ([0286]-[0288] – Example 1). The light emitting layer comprises the disclosed compound ([0287]).
Regarding claim 22, Kim et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses an organic light emitting device, i.e. an optoelectronic device. comprising the disclosed compound.
Regarding claim 23, Kim et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. As discussed above, the reference discloses an organic light emitting device.
Regarding claim 24, Kim et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses that the organic electroluminescent element, i.e. the optoelectronic device, comprises a substrate, an anode, i.e. ITO, a cathode i.e. a combination of Mg and Ag, where the anode and cathode are disposed on the substrate ([0286]-[0288] – Example 1). The light emitting layer comprises a host compound and the compound discussed above as a dopant ([0287]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al (US 2021/0053998) as applied to claims 1, 3-9, 12, and 16-24 above, and in view of Zhang et al (US 2016/0281208).
The discussion with respect to Kim et al as set forth in Paragraph 12 above is incorporated here by reference.
Regarding claim 25, Kim et al teach all the claim limitations as set forth above. Additionally, the reference discloses a process of forming an electroluminescent element comprising the disclosed compound. However, the reference does not disclose that the process utilizes a vacuum evaporation method as recited in the present claims.
Zhang et al discloses that typically, an organic light emitting device is manufactured by a vacuum evaporation process ([0003]). In view of this teaching, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to deposit the compound disclosed by Kim et al via vacuum deposition as doing so would amount to nothing more than use of known method for its intended use, in a known environment to accomplish entirely expected results.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In light of the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) rejection set forth in the previous Office Action is withdrawn. Furthermore, in light of the amendments to the claims, the 35 U.S.C. 102 and obviousness-type double patenting rejections set forth in the previous Office Action are withdrawn.
Applicants argue that as amended, Kim et al does not disclose the compound recited in claim 1. However, as discussed in the rejections above, the reference discloses the following compound:
PNG
media_image14.png
424
411
media_image14.png
Greyscale
RV is a methyl group and therefore, does not correspond to Formula I-0 of the claims:
PNG
media_image5.png
274
512
media_image5.png
Greyscale
.
However, the compound disclosed by the reference is but one embodiment and attention is directed to the following general formula for the compound ([0014] – Formula 1):
PNG
media_image15.png
264
356
media_image15.png
Greyscale
,
where R1 can be heteroaryl having 5 to 60 nuclear atoms. Paragraph [0031] defines heteroaryl as including triazinyl, i.e.
PNG
media_image16.png
261
342
media_image16.png
Greyscale
.
The triazinyl substituent corresponds to Formula I-0 of the claims:
PNG
media_image5.png
274
512
media_image5.png
Greyscale
,
where:
m is zero (0);
n is zero (0);
o is zero (0);
Ga is N;
Ja is CRa, where Ra is hydrogen;
Qb is CR1, where R1 is hydrogen;
Qc is N;
Z is Q, where Q is N; and
Qa is CRa, where Ra is a binding site.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER C. KOLLIAS whose telephone number is (571)-270-3869. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 8:00 AM – 5:00 PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jennifer Boyd can be reached on 571-272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALEXANDER C KOLLIAS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights